Mr. Daddy, despite a lack of evidence to the contrary, I trust you to be reasonable. Shouldn’t you ask an atheist for a definition of atheism?

“He is deep in the prog-tow… the pooka fever. He will not speak normal with thee again until he has passed through what is to come whenever the hell the damn thing is done.”
Mega-Kroykahs! Delude responsibly.

My version is a spacecraft in orbit around Neptune that looks just like a football, containing a tiny species of aliens who are individually influencing all human minds. If you really believe you have to have evidence to reject an assertion, that means you must now believe this spaceship and this alien species exist.

The thing is, the alien species in the football ship model is an order more reasonable than a god that’s defined incoherently, because neither my alien species nor my football ship defies nature or the fundamental standards of reasoning (i.e. logic, which is merely the codification of how reality works according to verifiable and perpetually repeated observations). Gods do.

Reason is to understanding as theory is to music, and critical thinking as mastery of theory.

“We say, ‘Love your brother.’ We don’t say it really, but… well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either. But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins/Nigel Tufnel

You have failed to disprove the evidence of a creator, therefore, you are a cult, with beliefs you promote to those you consider ignorant.

With a mind like yours, who needs head-hacking.

“He is deep in the prog-tow… the pooka fever. He will not speak normal with thee again until he has passed through what is to come whenever the hell the damn thing is done.”
Mega-Kroykahs! Delude responsibly.

What supernatural being do we worship, pray to, believe has all the answers?

Atheism requires belief, the belief that there is no Creator despite a lack of evidence to the contrary.

Wrong. Atheism makes no claim that “there is no creator.” I simply reject your claims based on insufficient evidence. Should you present evidence, we’re open to it. This is different from holding a cherished, unchanging, thoughtless, belief in something. The noise from atheists that you most likely hear and mistranslate is backlash from having religion shoved down our throats.

Atheism requires proselytising, lest contrary beliefs challenge them.

That really doesn’t even make sense.

“The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray.”
— Robert G. Ingersoll

This is not for axeldaddy, as my keyboard doesn’t have the diamond-tipped drill bit attachment I would need to aid in the delivery of the following message…

So for everyone else…
Atheist just means ‘Not a Theist’ or ‘I don’t have any religion’. Adding anything else is beyond the actual definition. That’s why Harris hates to even use the word. He says it does nothing to define who you are-though I think he’s wrong simply because most of the world is theist so it does, oddly enough, say something meaningful about you.

Anyway… its insane to think that ‘no religion’ is its own religion. And we hear this crap all the time.

Also, for help in arguing with the demented…its helpful I think to make note of the fact that all people are born atheist by this exact definition since we can’t believe in any religion when we’re born (‘cuz babies are technically dumb as axeldaddies) and have to get a religion shoved into their heads when they’re older to ever have one(though we know the religious brain-washers start on day one just to make sure it starts soaking in ASAP).

The atheist just says ‘Your evidence is not good enough to fall for these crazy claims.’ If an atheist says anything else its beyond the scope of being an atheist and usually delves into actual beliefs in the scientific method, logic/reason, evidence, reasons to be anti-theist, etc…

Oh… and the difference between a cult and a religion as the old joke goes… is just the number of its members.

Why are atheists not completely and utterly indifferent, if not logically ambivalent, yet remain stubbornly opposed to the concept of a creator?

Why do atheists automatically reject the concept of a superior intellect who may have created their very existence?

This is why I accuse you of being a religion, if not a cult. You proselytize as if you have something to prove. Why is that important to you?

I am not religious. I subscribe to no religion. I take the insult as being compared to a babe as a compliment.

By the way, I believe that most atheists, anti-theists, are more accurately described as anti-religionists, and I agree with most of you more than you realize. For example; I believe an atheist is capable of equal or greater morality than a common self-proclaimed Christian.

You can call me names, but I appreciate the challenges more. I may surprise you with my disdain for modern American Christianity.

There is no official “atheism’ that requires or suggests proselytising. So your assertion that

Atheism requires proselytising

is incorrect.
Some atheists care to share their ideas and some don’t. Some are more ‘preachy’ than others. Though Sam Harris, whose web site you are on, is not at all ‘preachy’, Someone may share their atheist ideas from a desire to change others minds which would resemble what religion does. However an atheist (at least most of the ones I know) are a lot less likely to insist they are right and they definitely won’t fall back on ancient texts for justification.
The comments you have received may be a bit sharp because you are asking very basic points that have been rebutted on Page 1 of any atheist forum, try http://www.happyatheistforum.com or richarddawkins.net for example. Either you are playing dumb or you skipped the introduction to atheism. There are a lot of Christians out there who want to have a discussion so they can share their faith. Go ahead share what you believe and why! It would be a lot more interesting than the very basic points you made, which do not even match the reality of discussion in this forum.
If you want to start an argument about these most basic points without appearing like a person who has no original ideas or someone just looking for an argument, I suggest you present some common atheist rebuttals to your points and discuss them.

Is there some indication here to yous that there’s any reason at all to expect that some kind of meaningful dialog with axeldaddy is remotely likely?

Are you sure that fora are somehow aimed at meaningful dialogues?

Nope. Depends upon the individual.

I’m just curious what people find of value or any worth at all in engaging such forum “participants”. I suspect many just aren’t really thinking about this, and I know some (perhaps many/most) who do so have motives they don’t seem to have examined. But then others are just playing kinda like kids poking ant hills with sticks.

I have no problem with any of that—just tend to encourage awareness and conscientious behavior.

Yup.

Reason is to understanding as theory is to music, and critical thinking as mastery of theory.

“We say, ‘Love your brother.’ We don’t say it really, but… well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either. But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins/Nigel Tufnel

I’m just curious what people find of value or any worth at all in engaging such forum “participants”. I suspect many just aren’t really thinking about this, and I know some (perhaps many/most) who do so have motives they don’t seem to have examined. But then others are just playing kinda like kids poking ant hills with sticks.

I have no problem with any of that—just tend to encourage awareness and conscientious behavior.

Yup.

I like your metaphor of the ant hill. It’s spot on. For me, I believe in the benefit of the doubt as regarded to first contact with alien vessel.

Causality is nothing but an assumption about the non-reducibility of a model that correlates two or more events of physical reality.

I like your metaphor of the ant hill. It’s spot on. For me, I believe in the benefit of the doubt as regarded to first contact with alien vessel.

I’m very big on the benefit of the doubt as well. In fact I often criticize those who instead impose the burden of doubt upon others. But there has to be a reasonable doubt upon which to base its benefit. I’m even pretty generous about that, I think, but I also think we’re well beyond that point with our buddy axeldaddy here. And I don’t think many of those chiming (if any) are at all likely to think otherwise.

The only other thing regarding anthill poking for which I’d advocate mindfulness is that we get the forum we feed (referring to the alleged old Indian proverb about the dogs/wolves/squaws). If too much of this ant hill poking goes on it can seriously color a forum. I don’t think that’s much of a danger here, at least not as yet, but it’s just something else to be aware of.

Well ... there it is.

I’m done.

Sorry for the interruption.

Carry on ...

Reason is to understanding as theory is to music, and critical thinking as mastery of theory.

“We say, ‘Love your brother.’ We don’t say it really, but… well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either. But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins/Nigel Tufnel